FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?TradCatKnight- MOST VIEWED & FOLLOWEDTraditional Catholic APOSTOLATE Worldwide!As Seen on:Gloria.tv, SpiritDaily, Shoebat, Canon212, VeteransToday, Beforeitsnews& many other notable websitesBOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!Welcome to my Nest.#EagleoftheFortress WEBSITE OWNERS: Don't Forget To Add Us On Your Page!ALEXA- TOP 25K WEBSITE WORLDWIDE

Friday, March 11, 2016

10 interesting things you should know about the Medieval Knight

10 interesting things you should know about the Medieval Knight

Whenever we talk about a medieval knight our reveries cling on to the
resplendent image of a chivalrous warrior incredibly armored from head
to toe, while being mounted atop a great warhorse. Now while reality is
not far from this imagery, there was historically more to the scope of
knighthood than just mowing down the ‘lesser’ infantrymen in
battlefields of the middle ages. In fact, the very term ‘medieval
knight’ is a pretty generic one, and their roles across the realms and
fiefs of Europe differed considerably, especially when it came to
administrative and land-holding side of affairs.

In essence, the role of
a knight extended far beyond the battlefield, and ranged into seemingly
mundane avenues like petty judges, political advisers to even glorified
farmers (at least in the initial years of 11th century). Obviously in
this article, we will cover the martial ambit of these warriors/social
elites, and thus by ‘medieval knight’ we would denote the European
knights of the middle ages who shared overlapping attributes in (mostly)
military affairs.

1) Harking back to the Romans –

Now
the knight of the 12th century was naturally not a unique creation of
that particular period, but he was rather a result of centuries of
influence and evolution that marked the social and military changes in
Europe and even Asia. To that end, the ordo (or order) of
knights harks back to a period which was far older than the established
clergy of middle ages. In fact, as Robert Jones points out (in his book Knight the Warrior and World of Chivalry)
there were many parallels between the so-called knightly class and the
Roman ‘equestrian’ class, with their social status being equated to
fighting on horses, their hierarchy within the society as political
elites, and their capacity to produce leaders and ‘officers’ for the
respective contemporary forces.

But of course, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that the Roman equestrian plainly evolved into the
medieval knight – as such a scope would be oversimplification. So while
some nascent aspects of knighthood were possibly influenced (in a latent
manner) by the Romans, there were also differences between the two,
especially in combat and military affairs. For example, while the
equestrians mainly offered leadership roles in battlefields, the
medieval knights also bore the brunt of fighting. Simply put, the Roman
social elites were militarily supported by disciplined and paid infantry
forces – and thus battle results were mostly dictated by such
professional legionaries
(as opposed to cavalry). In contrast, the medieval knight was the
dominant force in the European battlefield roughly from 11th century to
15th century, and thus both battle results and societal changes were
dictated by their rising power and martial prowess. In that regard, it
is rather interesting to know that the feudal structure of
then-contemporary Europe mirrored the Persian empire of the Achaemenids in their later ages.

2) Barbarian origins?

By
the later part of the disintegrating Roman Empire (a process which took
place over centuries), the perceived ‘barbarians’ like Franks and Goths
were given the responsibilities of military affairs, while the detached
‘Romans’ only played their crucial roles in administrative and
financial institutions. However by the 7th century AD, the Western Roman
Empire had already dissolved, and the ‘barbarians’ now found themselves
at the helm of ‘ready to grab’ lands and pastures. As a reactionary
measure for both political and military control, these newly found
kingdoms initiated social reforms (or at least adaptations) that put the
landholding class at the fore of military campaigns. In essence, this
pushed their perceived superior social status within the realm, while
also making them crucial for military gains – thus creating an
interrelated system where the warrior became attached to the revenues
generated from the land.

It should be noted that even by later
stages of the Roman Empire, the military organization had largely
separated from the state, with provincial governors, aristocrats and
commanders recruiting their own chosen bodyguards. This trend continued
and rather evolved by the early middle ages, with more potential
recruits being available from the newly formed landowners and free men.
The pueri (young men who were given military equipment and became warrior apprentices within elite households) and scarae
(a Frankish term denoting extremely well-equipped and battle hardened
warriors) were derived from such recruitment policies, thus paving the
way for the emergence of a later knightly class.

3) The final evolution of knights was possibly due to internal strife, not external threats –

Once
again, the view of the armored Carolingian horsemen being ‘prototype’
knights is an oversimplified one. This conventional view was partly held
by many earlier researchers because of the development (or rather
introduction) of stirrup into western Europe during the Carolingian
times. From purely military perspective, the stirrup did allow the rider
to be more secure on his horseback position, which would have made
charges more potent with couched lance tactics. But the problem with
such a conjecture is that couched lance postures were probably not
adopted in European battlefields until the emergence of later Normans in
11th century. And more importantly, the relatively large number of
horsemen fielded by the Carolingian kings was not really in response to
eastern armies – as evidenced by the Battle of Tours where infantry won
the day for Charles Martel.
In other words, the emergence of
knights pertained more to the contemporary social and political
situations, as opposed to just military innovations. And such a societal
scope presented itself at the end of 9th century AD, when the
Carolingian realm was in complete disarray. During such a chaotic
period, the ever powerful political elites detached themselves from the
king’s authority and fought among themselves to take control of the
empire’s land. Such internal conflicts encouraged the recruitment of
armored and fast horsemen who could rapidly raid enemy territories and
yet make their stands in actual battles. Mostly recruited from farmers
(who were also free men), these cavalrymen were termed as miles, and were probably the original precursors of the medieval knights.

4) Catching on with the latest fashion was a tough job –

As
one can comprehend from the aforementioned points, the first medieval
knight was not really the lord who dabbled in opulent affairs. On the
contrary, he was of ‘relatively’ lower social status (though always a
free man) who was brought forth to the political world because of his
military prowess. Now by 12th century AD, the changes in feudal
landscape had made sure that the medieval knight became a member of the
upper society strata (in a hierarchy-based ambit) – though his
economical means were not always mirrored by his superior status. Simply
put, a knight’s property was till far lesser than the court nobles and
monarchs, while the cost of arms and armor were also very high.
As
a result, the intricate armor systems (and even ritzy dresses) were
rather passed down from generations, as opposed to newer ‘models’
crafted on the whim of the medieval knight. On the other hand, the
higher nobles and members of the royal households could still flaunt
their ‘latest’ designs in both armors and apparel. This created a
confused scope for chroniclers, with anachronistic armor styles
overlapping certain periods. Furthermore, to keep up with the latest
fashion or even technological edge, many medieval knights had to modify
their armor over time – like the attachment of internal coifs to mail
shirts.

5) Writing, music and weapons –

Much like the Spartan agoge,
there was a process to becoming a medieval knight. By 13th century,
such a procedure became more uniform throughout Europe, with the 8 year
boy (of noble lineage) being sent away to the household of the lord.
Here he became a page, thus basically taking up the role of a servant
boy who ran errands. At the same time, he was given lessons in writing,
music and handling of basic weapons. The latter part was adopted through
various games and competitions that encouraged the boy to take up arms
and maneuver them.

By the age of 14, the boy was expected to
become a sturdily built teenager with a propensity for loyalty and
martial discipline. During this period, his rank was upgraded to a
squire, which made him responsible for looking after the arms, armor and
equipment of his superior knight (each squire was usually allotted to a
specific medieval knight). Suffice it to say, the squire’s training
also became more rigorous, with more focus on rules of tactics for horse
mounted combat; and as a result even injuries became commonplace.
Furthermore, some squires were also expected to hold their own in actual
battlefields – which made their training dangerous while keeping up the
spirit of ‘adventure’.
Finally by the age of 21, the squire was
‘dubbed’ as a knight, where he took the chivalry oath (discussed later
in the article). In the initial centuries, these dubbing scenarios
entailed humble affairs with the lord slapping the newly assigned knight
on his neck and then uttering a few quick words. However by the latter
middle ages, the achievement of knighthood took a more ceremonious turn,
with the church indulging in various symbolic and crowd-friendly
festivities.

6) From brawls to organized spectator sports –

By
mid 13th century, Europe went through a revolution that encompassed
spectator sports. While in the preceding centuries, medieval knights did
engage in ‘friendly’ competitions, these events quickly turned into
full-fledged brawls with serious fighting and resultant injuries (and
even fatalities). In fact, many of these free-form exercises (like the
French melee) almost played out like actual gruesome battles –
except for the presence of an audience. But a century later, most of
these brutal demonstrations were relegated in favor of organized
tourneys that focused on the ‘glorious’ essence of one-on-one combat.
Thus the related games became dominated by individual jousts, thus
giving rise to spectator sports in the medieval times. These
organizational changes in public events also played their crucial roles
in the development of certain armor types that were specifically
tailored to jousting.

7) War armor and ‘fashion armor’ –

The
notion of a medieval knight in his full war panoply is surely
intimidating, but the gilded patterns and the ostentatious accouterments
in his armor (especially after 13th century AD) were probably not
demonstrated in actual battles. In other words, the medieval knight wore
a more practical variant of his armor in combat scenarios, while the
ritzy stuff was kept aside only to be showed off in parades and
tournaments. This doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘ordinary’ war armor was
any less valuable or significant. For example, in 1181`AD England, a
freedman with a property valued at a substantial £16 (with inflation
adjusted, this figure comes to £166,000 or $240,000), was expected to
have a full knight’s equipment, including helmet, mail-shirt, lance and
shield. Such monetary values were also complemented by advancements in
technologies that enabled knights and well-armored soldiers to have some
degree of mobility combined with safety. To that end, contrary to
popular notions, plate armor usually tended to less cumbersome than
their mail counterparts, since the distribution of weight in the former
was far more streamlined.

Interestingly, as jousting became more
renowned as a dedicated spectator event, specific armors were designed
for such activities. One particular example from early 13th century
aptly showcases the extent of modifications being integrated on the
medieval knight armor system. – including the incorporation of larger
pauldrons reinforced by extended gardbrace, and the massive
‘frog-mouthed’ helmet with a singular eye-slit.

8) Sword and its symbolism –

Interestingly,
the very shape of the sword carried forth a symbolic scope – as must
have been identified by the church. That is because it resembled the
cruciform with the crossguard cutting a right angle across the grip
which extends into the blade (much like Kylo Ren’s lightsaber). Such an
imagery must have played its psychological role in bolstering many a
spiritual medieval knight.
But even before the advent of powerful
clergy members and crusading endeavors (i.e., before 11th century AD in
Europe), sword as a weapon almost mirrored the high social class of the
warrior. Such a trend could be gathered from the lack of swords in most
warrior burial graves dating from the period before the proper middle
ages. Even in literature sources, the heroes (like Arthur and Beowulf)
carry impressive swords with nigh magical properties that had been
passed from generation to generation. Suffice it to say, the
significance of its status and mystique continued in the later times,
with the sword becoming the weapon of choice for the medieval knight
(though complemented by other weapons like lances, maces and spears)

9) The ‘specialized’ warhorse –

The image of a medieval knight is incomplete without his horse. But unlike the Mongol warrior
who was intrinsically attached to his horse/horses, the horse of the
medieval knight was bred for specific purposes. Simply put, the warhorse
was used specially for battlefield scenarios, whereas other varieties
were used for transport (like rouceys and hackneys) and even
recreational activities like hunting (like coursers). Furthermore, there
were also prized horses that were only flaunted during parades and
tournaments – mostly by the richer knights and the noble lords.
To that end, the actual warhorse of the medieval times, also known as the destrier,
stood at a height of 5 ft to 5 ft 4 inches (15 to 16 hands), and was
mostly an uncastrated adult male (stallion). And beyond just its height
credentials, the defined musculature of the chosen horse conformed to
its broad chest and short-back, thus combining the advantages of both
speed and strength while also upholding crucial stamina needed in actual
charges and counter charges.

10) Chivalry and contradictions –

Much
has been said about the scope of chivalry when it came to the medieval
knight. But in truth, the conceptual elements of chivalry were muddled,
while the ‘guidelines’ of chivalry were only codified in 14th century.
Simply put, the very ambit of chivalry was loosely defined, and that
‘generic’ system pertained to what was perceived as proper knightly
conduct. Many elements of this extensive code of conduct were formulated
by the political elite (sometimes involving clergy) and then vowed upon
by the knight at his ‘dubbing’ ceremony. In that regard, the basis of
chivalry was mainly focused on three factors when it came to actual
combat scenarios.

Unsurprisingly, the first factor related to the
martial prowess and courageous nature of the medieval knight. To that
end, it was expected that the knight should be the first to engage the
enemy, while also demonstrating his individual ‘heroic’ feats on the
battlefield (a propensity that sometimes led to tactical disasters, like
in the Battle of Agincourt).
The second factor hinted at a fair fight with equal representation of
arms and even attacks of opportunity on both sides. The third broad
factor (and probably the most important one for political ties) related
to loyalty among the knights for their lord. On the other hand, the lord
was also expected to be ‘dutiful’ towards his well-armed retainers, by
showering them with gifts and sumptuous revenue portions.

One interesting episode from history, better known as the ‘The Blind Charge at the Battle of Crecy‘,
aptly demonstrated such bonds of loyalty. John of Bohemia, in spite of
going blind, joined the French king Philip VI, after being called upon
to join at the Battle of Crecy. This incident relates to how blind John
tethered his horse with a group of other Bohemian knights. This ‘blind
yet bound’ body of armored horsemen decided to boisterously charge into
the English ranks, but to no avail. While some records talk about John
wildly swinging his sword around the Prince of Wales, the blind king
must have ultimately met a gruesome death – as was evidenced from the
examination of his battered body. According to later assessments, the
King of Bohemia suffered a stab injury to his eye socket (with the
pointed weapon being pushed right into his skull) and a stab injury to
his chest (that probably penetrated his vital organs). His right hand
was also found to be cut off, presumably to steal his precious rings and
other kingly items.

Other chivalrous traditions went beyond
battlefield scopes to include social customs, like never giving evil
counsel to a lady and treating her with respect. But the etching of the
codes of conduct necessarily didn’t mean that every medieval knight
followed them to stringent levels. In many cases, it was found that
knights largely instigated plundering and looting after battles, for
practical (and profitable) reasons rather than willfully going against
chivalry codes of conduct. Furthermore, the church also played an
important role in ‘modifying’ many chivalry codes that obviously suited
its purposes, like upholding of ‘Christian values and duties’ that would
have inspired many knights to participate in crusades.

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

DAILY NEWS- Scroll Thru The Latest News

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

TRADCATKNIGHT FORUM

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

Signup To Google+. Then Youtube Then Begin Interacting! Click the Pic Above!

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."